The Politics Thread

[MichaelGL]

Personal finances are not the same as the mammoth financial structure the government has. Some don't want to admit it, but it's apples and oranges.

Wealth was developed extremely under Ronald Reagan, yet the government was deficit spending under him, unable to save as much as they put out.

Honestly, I don't think enough has been done to fix, improve, and develop our infrastructure, and that is due to the cut backs Republicans put into place. While such projects do cost money, they both benefit those looking for a job and the taxpayers themselves.

And I wonder, just how much of the shrinking size of government, firings of government employees, abolishing certain departments, has contributed to the unemployment rate. I would think, very much.

[Max]

Way to go Barry, Reid, and Boehner! A huge irony here is that today also is the president's 50th birthday.

Or, perhaps I'm being too harsh on the three men listed above. After all, even two and one-half years after he left office, this economic s#itstorm is still all Bush's fault.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Max

[alphanguy74]

So.... if your car blows it's engine, do you use a credit card to fix your car so can go back and forth to work and earn money? Or do you call your boss and quit your job because you don't have the money to even pull your car out of the ditch? And you want to cut entitlements..... FINE. If you are of retierment age, and you have income of 100,000$ per year or more, then you ONLY get back waht you put in, and nothing more. How does that sound? Social Security is meant to be a safety net, not some damned IRA, like some people seem to think it would be. And it's real nice that you earn enough money to have savings in reserve.... I wonder if you were one paycheck away from living under a bridge and had no health insurance, you'd hold the same opnions on entitlements and government assitance.

Edited August 5, 2011 by alphanguy74

[alphanguy74]

Part of the economic sh!tstorm is the damn NYSE and all these fickle panicky dingbats that trade stocks. Who's ridiculous idea was it to put the economic health of our country in the hands of a bunch of chicken littles?

Edited August 5, 2011 by alphanguy74

[DRW50]

Will Rick Perry be telling us that the Statue of Liberty is a "demonic idol"? This is one of the big speakers lined up for his upcoming event.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/rick-perry-ally-condemns-demonic-lady-liberty-as-false-goddess.php?ref=fpb

[Adam]

S&P has downgraded the USA's credit rating to AA+ from AAA, first time ever.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/05/news/economy/downgrade_rumors/index.htm?iref=BN1

Damn!

The White House and Treasury Dept. is calling bull [!@#$%^&*] on their analysis (as expected), but regardless the optics of this look terrible.

[Max]

This is really disgusting: the American economy's in the dumper but Barry's out having a star-studded 50th birthday bash:

http://www.upi.com/E...42471312558632/

This is all the proof one needs in order to know that Obama is one selfish prick.

I wonder how much of this party was paid for by (1) the Democratic Party, (2) corporate donors, and (3) taxpayers. I strongly assume that at least part of this party was taxpayer funded.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Max

[Scotty]

Oh good grief....if this were Bush, he would be doing the same thing. This problem is as much of a Republican problem as it is a Democrat problem.

[GoldenDogs]

You might be surprised that I disagree here... My feeling is that, while there are more tentacles on the big government octopus, it's still just an octopus. Whether it's yours or mine or Barack's bank account, the register at some point must be balanced. But the fiscal behavior modeled for us by DC goons (yes, of both parties) is to blame for the vast numbers of Americans living beyond their means. If Big Government doesn't have to pay its bills and balance its checkbook, why should anyone else?

I think spending the people's money is a responsibility that lawmakers do NOT take seriously and they are very frivolous... it's abuse of our funds that make so many wary and suspicious and, as a result, worthwhile programs are often given the shaft. If both Dems and Reps would handle our money in a more responsible fashion, I wouldn't have such an aversion to sending more their way. How about some oversight? Americans really don't have a clue where our money is going and why, therefore it is hard to fathom why we should bother sending them more. I know many here don't feel our tax burden is over the top, particularly compared to some European countries (whose economies have tanked despite heavier taxation!), but don't forget that we have regulation upon regulation with sometimes triple taxation, local bond measure, etc. Just because individuals can spare an extra dime doesn't mean someone should take it from them...

See, I just think that government as a major employer is BAD on all levels. If there is some worthless, pointless department doing nothing except existing on our dime so that some folks have a job, that's not right. I'd rather spend some money to retrain those folks for whatever hot-button job there is today than keep them in pointless positions forever and ever on the taxpayer dime. Yes, me... one who leans right... is suggesting spend a little now so as not to waste a lot in perpetuity!

Wow, Alpha... I'll try to respond to each point there. I'm not particularly happy about cuts to Medicare or Social Security. It sucks that old folks, once again, get the shaft. They shouldn't... Before we are forced to cut so much as a single percentage from some old person's monthly living allowance... I say we first clean house and eliminate wasteful spending throughout the government. But every representative and senator has some stupid pet project back home that they've promised to fund for someone in exchange for a vote. That needs to stop.

As for my ability to save some money... Yes, I'm fortunate but my job is shaky right now and on the bubble. My wife's job was shaky a couple of years ago, but stable now. I was unemployed for about a year in 2006... I received unemployment for six months, then lived off my savings account for another six until I found another job. I had no insurance that year. Good credit and a savings account carried me through. I have never lived beyond my means and that makes a difference. Yes, I was literally NO paycheck away from living under a bridge... and no, the experience doesn't change my mind about entitlements. I strongly believe government assistance should be something short-term, not a lifelong pursuit.

Anyway... employed or unemployed... I admit that I'm enjoying Big Brother this summer.

[Max]

Scotty, I never pretended that this problem was exclusive to Democrats. The fact of the matter is that most politicians are selfish pricks who only care about themselves and indulge in their lavish lifestlyes. (I am sure that Bush would have done the same thing, and that you would have rightly trashed him for it.) However, Obama should be held to a higher standard because he and his supporters emphatically stated (in 2008) that Obama was a "special" kind of leader who would not act as other politicans do.

Even if this birthday party did not cost the tax payers one cent, it was nevertheless extremely insensitive and politically tone-deaf on Obama's part. Unfortunately, I have yet to see you, Scotty, criticize Obama for not living up to the ridiculous expectations that so many had for him; instead, and with all due respect, you merely toss out the tired old excuse that Bush would have done the same thing. (If you have previously acknowledged that Obama failed to live up to the expectations so many had that he would transcend politics, could you please show me where you have previously said so? Should this be the case, I would owe you an apology. Of course, three other liberals here at SON--CarlD2, Quartermainefan, and Adam--have acknowledged that Obama has failed to live up to the hype, and all three should be highly praised for speaking the truth.)

And while most politicians behave in very selfish ways, not all choose to do so: for instance, Andrew Cuomo (the Democratic governor of New York), chose to have a very toned-down inaugural celebration. While this quote isn't verbatim, Cuomo basically stated that because so many in New York are hurting, it would be highly inappropriate to have a lavish party; instead, a lavish party can be thrown once things have improved considerably.

[DRW50]

The next time someone tells you how liberal the New York Times is, tell them that the NYT is now enabling hate groups that spread ugly lies about the Holocaust.

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/08/nyt-gives-credence-to-holocaust.html

[quartermainefan]

The people who could answer that rhetorical questions are each and every republican who voted for the Bush Tax Cuts ten years ago, insisted they be extended two years ago, and demanded there be no tax increases two weeks ago.

For all the BS (and that is truly what it is) about how republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility and the democrats are the party of big government, let no one forget that the Great Satan himself, Bill Clinton, balanced budgets and was the most financially responsible President of them all. Then Alfred E Newman ran in 2000 and said "the government is not in the business of making a profit" and all the sheep voted for what can only be described as someone totally unqualified for office. He and his sheep followers in congress promptly decimated the budget all in the name of the religion of tax cuts.

Predictably, every republican who didn't care about budget deficits (and who magically won't care about them once again when a republican is in office) suddenly sees deficit spending as kryptonite.

Obama sucks, but if anyone can name a single republican presidential candidate who doesn't kneel at the shrine of Reaganomics and tax cuts, lets hear their name. Of course the answer republicans always give (and have been giving since 1936) is social security must be decimated. They sugarcoat it with different slogans, but that is what it comes down to. No one will ever cut a dime from the military, that somehow is unamerican. It doesn't matter the soviet union died 20 years ago and warships and nukes are not efficient in the fight against islamic terrorism, republicans demand the military budget still be some untouchable portion of the government in case the mythical "they" one day come calling. Ask Gorbachev how the military budget worked out for the Soviets.

Edited August 7, 2011 by quartermainefan

[alphanguy74]

AMEN! the military budget should be cut in half, and what about the corporations who make enormous profits with military contracts? Why can't the government hire their own people and build their own damn planes... cut out the middle man and save a buttload of money at the same time. The military isn't keeping us free, no country on earth is going to invade our shores, not when a large percentage of civilians are armed and can blow someone's head off before they get on the front porch. These SAME Republicans who bleat about responsible spending want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to build a wall to keep all the "wetbacks" from coming in. Well, I have news for THEM... the government isn't hiring these illegal aliens, COMPANIES are. Find them... pass legislation, prosecute them, and if they are found guilty, sieze and liquidate all their assets, and use the funds to pay down the debt. If there are no jobs for them, they would stop coming. At the very LEAST, all these right wing pundits need to stop bumping their gums about BS, and do something worthwhile, like investigating, exposing, and organizing boycotts against companies that are hiring illegal aliens.

Edited August 7, 2011 by alphanguy74

[Max]

First of all, I agree that it is complete bulls#it that the Republicans are fiscally responsible. However, Qfan, you seem to conveniently forget that Bill Clinton had a Republican Congress for the last six of his eight years in office. (And, of course, you give them zero credit for the budget surpluses.) Furthermore, you have failed to acknowledged that Clinton's economic record was by and large a conservative one: he signed into law welfare reform (in 1996), the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (which provided tax relief for small businesses), the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and 1999's Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (which repealed part of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933); in addition, President Clinton was a strong advocate for free-trade agreements, which many in the far-left (especially unions) abhor. By contrast, the only major "liberal" economic accomplishment of Clinton's presidency was when he raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993. (He and Hillary also tried to get "universal" health care passed as well, but they failed miserably at this. In turn, the unpopularity of "HillaryCare" was the major reason why the GOP captured control of both the House and Senate in 1994. Under the advice of Dick Morris, Bill Clinton adopted more moderate--yet still right of center--versions of the GOP's conservative proposals in a successful attempt to salvage his presidency.)

Edited August 7, 2011 by Max

[quartermainefan]

all your post does is illustrate just how insanely right wing modern republicans are. You are right, Clinton's economics were right of center but to listen to the goddess of all things republican today, Michelle Bachmann, the Clinton tax rate is something Brezhnev concocted. And "mainstream" John Boehner grovels at the tea party throne and goes along with their insane worldview. Recently someone likened them to the taliban, with an equal zeal for purity. They want religious, the tea party wants religious and economic purity. And with their propaganda machine in full swing, they have managed to convince themselves that Obama's call for the return of the Clinton tax rate is to the left of a McGovern-Nadar love child.

Edited August 8, 2011 by quartermainefan